NATIONAL SECURITY
Total Cuts: $95 billion
Total Achieved Savings: $7 billion

For too long, the defense budget was considered untouchable by fiscal disciplinarians. Despite the fact that the base budget alone (not including war funds) has more than doubled over the past decade and now constitutes more than 55 percent of our discretionary spending, lawmakers from either side of the aisle were loathe to touch the Department of Defense (DOD) budget. Republicans considered it sacred, Democrats didn’t want to seem soft on defense, and neither side wanted to give up the money the bill sends to nearly every Congressional district. But this rapid buildup of funds did not encourage fiscal prudence: “What little discipline existed in the Defense Department when it came to spending has gone completely out the window,” Secretary Robert Gates admits. But our economic crisis is forcing political leadership to put every option on the table when deciding how to trim government spending, and a consensus is emerging among voters that all government agencies must do their part to restore the country to fiscal stability. After all, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen has identified the nation’s debt as its greatest national security threat.

Cuts Include:

Freeze Ground-Based Missile Defense (GMD) System
Cut: $8 billion

Freeze Development of Military Space Programs
Cut: 11.3 billion

Defer Development of Next-Generation Bomber
Cut: $3.7 billion

Production of V-22 Osprey
Cut: $12 billion

Reform TRICARE
Cut: $60 billion

Achieved Cuts:

Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle
Cut: $4 billion

Production of the Alternate Engine (F136) for the Joint Strike Fighter (F-35)
Cut: $3 billion

NATIONAL SECURITY
Total Cuts: $95 billion
Total Achieved Savings: $7 billion

Freeze development of the Ground-Based Missile Defense (GMD) System
Cut: $8 billion

Missile Defense is DOD’s most expensive program in history and yet several of its technologies remain unproven or tested under only highly managed conditions. The Congressional Budget Office has suggested eliminating phases of the GMD program that would expand missile interceptors in Alaska and establish new ones in Europe until current systems are proven. This would still permit development of interceptors to protect the U.S. against missiles from Iran and North Korea, the main concern of the GMD program.

Freeze Development of Military Space Programs
Cut: $11.3 billion

Military space programs have a poor record of endemic cost and schedule overruns. The Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS), intended to provide initial warning of a ballistic missile attack, is a classic example. Space development needs to adopt a “distributed architecture” approach that fields many smaller, cheaper satellites instead of mega-satellites like SBIRS. For that reason, the SBIRS pro¬gram should be truncated after the current Block 4 development for a savings of $2.1 billion. DoD has already stopped its involvement in another huge satellite system, the National Polar-Orbiting Environmental Space system (NPOESS), allow¬ing DoD to eliminate the C-1 spacecraft platform used for the system’s afternoon orbit for a savings of $1.7 billion, as noted by a Taxpayers for Common Sense report. Finally, terminating the Precision Tracking Space System (PTSS) because of redundancy with other missile defense and space programs would save $7.5 billion, according to the CBO.

Defer Development of Next-Generation Bomber
Cut: $3.7 billion

The DoD announced plans last year to begin developing a “next-generation” bomber aircraft to replace the Air Force’s B-52, B-1, and B-2 planes, which drop both nuclear and conventional bombs. The bomber is projected to cost at least $55 billion over its lifetime, including development. The DoD claims that development needs to start now even though the B-52 will be operational until 2040 and the B-2 is undergoing continuous upgrades. In fact, Obama administration canceled a bomber program just last year, criticizing the original gold-plated design as unaffordable and pointing out that the current fleet was performing well and could meet foreseeable challenges with ongoing upgrades. CBO warned that the DoD’s weapons acquisition program, including the future bomber fleet, was in danger of breaking the military’s bank. Deferring development of costly next-generation weapons saves money and is low risk because of the robust nuclear delivery capabilities that will be available for several decades. The DoD estimates spending approximately $3.7 billion on the new bomber from FY 2012 to FY 2016. (Savings would likely be greater, but we do not have estimates beyond FY 2016.)

Production of V-22 Osprey
Cut: $12 billion

Procurement of V-22s should stop when the current multi-year procurement contract ends in FY 2012. As both the Fiscal Commission and the Sustainable Defense Task Force have noted, the 170 scheduled to be procured beyond that can be replaced by MH-60 or CH-53 helicopters, which would save approximately $12 billion in procurement and operating costs. The V-22 is simply neither cost- nor operationally effective. Each V-22 costs $122 million to build, and this cost has not translated into operational effectiveness. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the V-22 costs over $11,000 per hour to fly and had a full mission capability (FMC) rate of just 6 percent in Iraq.

TRICARE
Cut: $60 billion

Health care consumes more than 8 percent of all DoD spending and is projected to explode in coming decades. Yet TRICARE premiums haven’t risen in a decade. Every recent attempt by DoD to increase premiums or co-pays has been shot down by Congress and veterans’ groups. Still, many fully employed military retirees opt for TRICARE over employer-provided care, which amounts to a government subsidy for employers. Reforming this system along the lines suggested by the Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation, a plan endorsed by former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, could save more than $60 billion, based on estimates from the Report of the Sustainable Defense Task Force. The changes would mostly affect those ex-service personnel between the ages of 38 and 65 with other health insurance options available.

Achieved Cuts

Cancel Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV)
Cut: $4 billion

The EFV was developed years ago to replace the Marines’ current amphibious assault vehicle, but the program’s cost and mission came into question during its development. The EFV unit cost more than doubled to $24 million, while the U.S. hasn’t stormed a beach in nearly half a century. Several observers recommended DOD cancel the program, including the Simpson-Bowles commission, and DOD pulled the plug on it last fall.

Production of the Alternate Engine (F136) for the Joint Strike Fighter (F-35)
Cut: $3 billion

The Defense Department (DOD) has put all its resources into the Joint Strike Fighter, decreeing it our next-generation fighter aircraft. At the same time, DOD fought Congressional efforts to build an alternate engine for the plane, saying it would waste money by slowing development without generating savings. An amendment eliminated money for the program from the FY11 spending bill, and DOD formally ended the program in April. An amendment to the FY12 bill would allow the program to stay alive on the contractor’s dime, but that initiative is not expected to survive conference.

Note: Figures from the Congressional Budget Office’s annual budget options analyses, studies by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, reports by the Government Accountability Office and Congressional Research Service, or agency annual budget justification documents.